No, I get it. If we trade our picks then there's no reward for tanking. But if for some bizarre reason Toronto would be willing to trade us OG for Ant and any ole two first rounders, it'd be kinda cool to trade picks we kinda don't think are gonna be any good.
I think ours are more valuable, so yeah the trade would be even dumber if you put Portland picks unprotected in the trade instead of Miami. Those are picks you give up for Giannis or a star, maybe Jaylen Brown or Bridges - but certainly not for OG. But that doesn't mean trading Miami picks makes it a good trade. Miami's picks unprotected in 2028 and 2030 have a ton of value that far out. That franchise has no assets but Bam and few picks to build for those distant years, they could be at the bottom of the NBA. This is how the Celtics got Tatum and Brown without having to tank. Plus you want to give up Ant? OG is an injury plagued role player that will never be a star and very well might walk for nothing in 11 months. If he doesn't walk he will be on a massive overpaid contract near the max that makes him have very little value. Blazers have no use for his ability to win games next season. That would be a horrible trade.
Why won't the picks be any good? OKC, the Spurs, Utah, and Denver have a ton of good players or great trade assets that they could be dominant in 5 years. What does Miami have, especially if acquiring Dame? The only thing they have is Bam. They already owe a pick to OKC and would owe 2-3 to us if we do the Dame trade. That won't allow them to build the young talent on their roster in future seasons. They were a playin team this year - its very possible they are in the lottery for some of those future years. That franchise might be a mess at that time. Big market teams like the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks have been stuck in the lottery for many years. Theres no certainty Miami is going to stay out of it every season for the next 7 years.
I understand that as a Blazers fan, you may not know this, but.... there is a part of the game called "defense." Blazers are, and have been, last in the league in it, OG is a master of it. So, yes, OG has some downsides, but defense is why Ant has miniscule trade value around the league, even though he himself is a master of offense.
Do you think the Blazers are going to contend next year or something? Why would we consider giving up unprotected picks for a one year rental of OG's defense. Yeah I'd give up Ant for OG. I wouldn't give up unprotected picks. Avery Bradley was one of the best defensive guards in the NBA then washed at 27. Defense is one of the first skills that slips as players approach their late 20's. Maybe in a few years when Sharpe/Scoot are closer to develop the Blazers can trade away picks for a win now elite two way player to contend. They aren't at that point. It would be stupid to trade away picks right now for that type of rental. If the Blazers want defense then just do more moves like acquiring Thybulle for 2nd rounders. Blazers need to develop talent and acquire first round picks. They don't need to to try and cash in their best chips to immediately contend. They need to slowly build up their chip stack.
I'm not saying what we should or should not do. What I am saying is that you completely ignored OG's good side when making some sort of argument about him.
Also the irony that we would acquire the type of forward that Dame wanted in a trade sending Dame out is nuts. If the Blazers were going to trade Ant and picks for OG wouldn't you have wanted to do that to keep Dame in Portland? Why would you do that move when sending Dame to Miami and rebuilding? It just makes no sense.
OG is a great defender, probably right below Thybulle. If he was an iron man like Bridges I'd be much more interested in him - but his injuries scare me. Also his massive pending contract makes him have little value. I never said anything bad about his defense or ignored it so I'm not sure why your implying that. If the Blazers could just sign him without giving up unprotected picks I'd much rather have him than Grant/Nurk/Ant/etc.
It depends what picks - if your talking two protected first and this was back before Dames trade request then sure do it. If its multiple years of unprotected picks then no I would've declined it. Supposedly we offered #7 last year for OG and Toronto declined. OG had real value but much more if we are immediately trying to win with Dame. Being on an expiring contract now certainly lowers his value. Everything I've heard is that Masai asks for the moon.
Ant fits Cronin's move to go young imo. If he could flip Ant for a young front court defender he probably wood do so.
This is what Toronto wanted last year: 7 + Hart + Little + ANOTHER first. Multiple people have confirmed this. Yes, he's on an expiring this year, but what makes anyone think Masai's valuation of OG has come down significantly?
The need to extend Siakam and him and the 2nd apron reality, imho. Toronto will have to face these issues sooner or later. If it is forcing a trade of Siakam for a lesser value or OG is yet to be determined. With Siakam torpedoing allegedly a Portland trade - maybe they are more likely to trade OG.
here's the thing about Toronto: there has been substantial talk for 20 months that they need to make trades; that they have too many similar players; that they need to reset and re-balance their roster but they haven't done a thing except trade for Poeltl. All the reports about Ujiri being impossible to negotiate with and him massively over-valuing his players appear to be true
I think he just holds out for trades where he can clearly win, and will risk players leaving for nothing in free agency. Poetl trade and contract look bad in recent months.
OG has been wanting out but Masai ain't letting him go, at least not yet. With Barnes and Siakam, OG would be the odd man out. Someone's gotta go. OG just fired his agent and got a new one at CAA. He'd be a great fit.
